Probe PLC Ports

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds meaningful context beyond that by clarifying that no authentication occurs and no PLC data is read. It does not describe what a probe result contains or how timeouts surface, which keeps it below 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero padding, with the core capability and its key limitation front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should do more to explain what a probe returns and how partial failures or timeouts are reported. For a simple three-parameter read-only probe it is adequate, but an agent still has open questions about result interpretation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the burden but provides almost nothing: it never explains the host format, that ports defaults to 102/4840/80/443 and is capped at 16 entries, or what timeoutMs controls. The mention of S7/OPC UA/Web API only loosely hints at the default port set.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource (TCP connectivity probe of PLC ports) and scopes it by protocol (S7/OPC UA/Web API) and by explicit negative boundaries. It clearly reads as a network-level probe rather than the project/HMI manipulation tools in the sibling list, though no sibling is named directly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'likely S7/OPC UA/Web API endpoints', suggesting discovery of reachable services, and the sentence 'Does not authenticate or read PLC data' usefully tells the agent what this tool cannot be used to accomplish. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not comparison to any alternative or prerequisite ordering.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.